Islamic History Expert explains Iran's world plan

[pizza]

Arutz Sheva - IsraelNationalNews.com

Islamic History Expert: Moslem Peace with Israel? Never!
Thursday, September 14, 2006 / 21 Elul 5766

Islam History Professor Moshe Sharon of Hebrew University told a counter-terrorism conference Thursday that, "There is no possibility of peace between Israel and the Palestinians whatsoever - ever.”


Sharon, speaking at the annual conference of Herzliya’s Counter Terrorism Institute, said that Iran is dead serious about obtaining and using nuclear weapons in order to bring about its vision of an Islamic End of Days.

The veteran expert on Islam says that Western officials fail to grasp that the Arab and Islamic world truly see Israel’s establishment as a “reversal of history” and are therefore unable to ever accept peaceful relations with it. From Moslems’ perspective, “Islamic territory was taken away from Islam by Jews. You know by now that this can never be accepted, not even one meter. So everyone who thinks Tel Aviv is safe is making a grave mistake. Territory, which at one time was dominated by Islamic rule, now has become non-Moslem. Non-Moslems are independent of Islamic rule and Jews have created their own independent state. It is anathema. Worse, Israel, a non-Moslem state, is ruling over Moslems. It is unthinkable that non-Moslems should rule over Moslems.”

Sharon dismissed various peace treaties signed by Moslem and Arab officials over the years as "pieces of paper, parts of tactics and strategies…with no meaning."

Sharon’s assessment focused on the danger posed by Iran. From studying Iranian culture, literature, newspapers, broadcasts and interviews with major players in the Islamic regime, Sharon concludes that a deep belief in a Shiite messiah is at the root of Iran’s nuclear project. “They truly believe that the Shiite messiah, the twelfth Imam (also known as the Mahdi), is here, and that he will reveal himself…What moves the Iranian government and leadership today is first and foremost the wish to bring about the twelfth Imam."

Addressing the theological doctrine of how exactly the 12th Imam will be revealed, Sharon explained: "How will they bring him? Through an apocalypse. He (the Mahdi) needs a war. He cannot come into this world without an Armageddon. He wants an Armageddon. The earlier we understand this the better. Ahmadinejad wants nuclear weapons for this!"

Sharon has in the past insisted that the Western world was engaging in great folly by differentiating between radical and peaceful Islam. “All of a sudden we see that the greatest interpreters of Islam are politicians in the Western world,” he wrote. “They know better than all the speakers in the mosques, all those who deliver terrible sermons against anything that is either Christian or Jewish. These Western politicians know that there is good Islam and bad Islam. They know even how to differentiate between the two, except that none of them know how to read a word of Arabic.”

“The difference between Judaism, Christianity and Islam is as follows: Judaism speaks about national salvation - namely that at the end of the story, when the world becomes a better place, Israel will be in its own land, ruled by its own king and serving God. Christianity speaks about the idea that every single person in the world can be saved from his sins, while Islam speaks about ruling the world. I can quote here in Arabic, but there is no point in quoting Arabic, so let me quote a verse in English: ‘Allah sent Mohammed with the true religion so that it should rule over all the religions.’

“The idea, then, is not that the whole world would will necessarily become Moslem at this time, but that the whole world would be subdued under the rule of Islam.” That, Sharon insists, is the plan, in black-and-white, of the Iranian regime.

“This is why [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad seeks nuclear weapons,” he emphasized. “The faster we realize this the better.”

http://www.arutzsheva.com/print.php3?wh ... &id=112066

[Ralph]

One problem with academia is that everyone is an eternal optimist.

[jack stowaway]

The professor may well be right. Radical Islam isn't the problem. Islam is the problem. Even mainstream Muslim belief is antithetical to Western liberalism.

[mourningstar]

dude, correction

religion is the problem: without it, there wouldn't all of this

only some quarrel about oils and stuff

[pizza]

religion is the problem: without it, there wouldn't all of this

Yeah. Look at all those Hindus, Buddhists, Christians and Jews, not to mention Bahai's, Zoroastrians and Sikhs rioting and killing over every little perceived insult.

[mourningstar]

Yeah. Look at all those Hindus, Buddhists, Christians and Jews, not to mention Bahai's, Zoroastrians and Sikhs rioting and killing over every little perceived insult.

Christianity had a violent history too(too long), it 's like taking a break

[Corlyss_D]

religion is the problem: without it, there wouldn't all of this

only some quarrel about oils and stuff

You mean without religion as an excuse, people would just have the naked reasons for war? So let me ask you, given you understand that religion is just an excuse, what difference does it make whether religions exist? I think I recall that you are an atheist. Fine. You think atheists wouldn't be fighting over access to oil since they don't believe in God?

Yeah, right! - Vinnie Barbarino

Christianity had a violent history too(too long), it 's like taking a break

It's not taking a break. It's been completely marginalized everywhere in the West in that it no longer controls the apparatus of the state and it dominates the fabric of social life. You certainly can't be arguing that to avoid being hypocrites we should just ignore the Islamic character of the threat? And you certainly can't be arguing that in order to be fair we have to give Islam its opportunity to revive religious wars settled 400 years ago?

[david johnson]

dude, correction

religion is the problem: without it, there wouldn't all of this

only some quarrel about oils and stuff

hehe heh...wanna by a bridge?

[jack stowaway]

dude, correction

religion is the problem: without it, there wouldn't all of this

only some quarrel about oils and stuff

The barbarous and violent response to the Pope's comments indicate the threat posed by Islam - a religion which tolerates neither dissent nor criticism.

If you're still confused as to the nature of the enemy, try visiting a few Muslim forums. The level of vitriol directed at the West/Jews/Americans/Catholics/etc etc etc demonstrates the pathological grip exerted by Islam over its followers.

[jack stowaway]

From the Sept 18 Guardian..."The Pope's speech in Germany last week, in which he quoted a medieval ruler who said Muhammad's innovations were "evil and inhuman", has led to widespread condemnation in the Muslim world. Last night the controversy seemed to have claimed its first victims when gunmen killed a 65-year-old Italian nun and her bodyguard at the entrance to a hospital where she worked in the Somalian capital, Mogadishu.

..

An influential Iranian cleric, Ahmad Khatami, warned that if the Pope did not apologise, the "outcry will continue until he fully regrets his remarks". He suggested "the Pope should fall on his knees in front of a senior Muslim cleric and try to understand Islam".

The Religion of Peace continues to astonish with its compassion, understanding and tolerance.

One wonders if there is any end to Islamic hypocrisy. Do Muslims, for example, read their own newspapers or listen to the clerics denouncing the West/Jews/Americans/Catholics etc etc etc in the crudest and most vile terms?

[mourningstar]

religion is the problem: without it, there wouldn't all of this

only some quarrel about oils and stuff

You mean without religion as an excuse, people would just have the naked reasons for war? So let me ask you, given you understand that religion is just an excuse, what difference does it make whether religions exist? I think I recall that you are an atheist. Fine. You think atheists wouldn't be fighting over access to oil since they don't believe in God?

Yeah, right! - Vinnie Barbarino

Christianity had a violent history too(too long), it 's like taking a break

It's not taking a break. It's been completely marginalized everywhere in the West in that it no longer controls the apparatus of the state and it dominates the fabric of social life. You certainly can't be arguing that to avoid being hypocrites we should just ignore the Islamic character of the threat? And you certainly can't be arguing that in order to be fair we have to give Islam its opportunity to revive religious wars settled 400 years
ago?

The difference in religion has always been a big problem. most of the time, its the fuel and its climax.
Well, Radical or Facism Islam is indeed a problem. a big problem,
but i don't see problems with Muslims, in fact; i never saw a radical islam i n real life.

most of the muslims are normal muslims, pretty liberated.. btw; i am not an atheist, i believe in a God, you could say im spiritual

[jack stowaway]

More words of reconcilliation from the religion of peace and love....

The Pope must die, says Muslim
This Is London
18.09.06

A notorious Muslim extremist told a demonstration in London yesterday that the Pope should face execution.

Anjem Choudary said those who insulted Islam would be "subject to capital punishment".

His remarks came during a protest outside Westminster Cathedral on a day that worldwide anger among Muslim hardliners towards Pope Benedict XVI appeared to deepen.

The pontiff yesterday apologised for causing offence during a lecture last week. Quoting a medieval emperor, his words were taken to mean that he called the prophet Mohammed "evil and inhuman".

He insisted he was "deeply sorry" but his humbling words did not go far enough to silence all his critics or quell the violence and anger he has triggered.

A nun was shot dead in Somalia by Islamic gunmen and churches came under attack in Palestine.

Choudary's appeal for the death of Pope Benedict was the second time he has been linked with apparent incitement to murder within a year.

The 39-year-old lawyer organised demonstrations against the publication of cartoons of Mohammed in February in Denmark. Protesters carried placards declaring "Behead Those Who Insult Islam".

Yesterday he said: "The Muslims take their religion very seriously and non-Muslims must appreciate that and that must also understand that there may be serious consequences if you insult Islam and the prophet.

"Whoever insults the message of Mohammed is going to be subject to capital punishment."

He added: "I am here have a peaceful demonstration. But there may be people in Italy or other parts of the world who would carry that out.

"I think that warning needs to be understood by all people who want to insult Islam and want to insult the prophet of Islam."

As well as placards attacking the Pope such as "Pope go to Hell", his followers outside the country's principal Roman Catholic church also waved slogans aimed at offending the sentiments of Christians such as "Jesus is the slave of Allah". [I wonder at the reaction if the sentiment was reversed?]

A Scotland Yard spokesman said of his comments: "We have had no complaints about this. There were around 100 people at the demonstration. It passed off peacefully and there were no arrests."

Larger Islamic groups in Britain said they accepted the Pope's apology. Inayat Bunglawala of the Muslim Council of Britain said: "The Vatican has moved quickly to deal with the hurt and we accept that.

"It was something that should never have happened - words of that nature were always likely to cause dismay - and we believe some of the Pope's advisers may have been at fault over his speech."

Yesterday's sermon by the Pope was the first time a pontiff has publicly said sorry.

He said he regretted Muslim reaction to his speech and stressed that the quotation did not reflect his personal opinion. Anger and violence - including attacks on seven churches in the West Bank and Gaza - have characterised one of the biggest international crises involving the Vatican in decades.

The Pope appeared determined to move quickly to try to defuse the anger but the fury of many radicals was unabated last night and there were fears for his safety.

Iraqi jihadists issued a video of a scimitar slicing a cross in two, intercut with images of Benedict and the burning Twin Towers.

The website run in the name of the Mujahedeen Army, used by extremist groups who have claimed responsibility for attacks in Iraq, was addressed to "You dog of Rome" and threatened to "shake your thrones and break your crosses in your home".

In a reference to suicide bombing, it said: "We swear to God to send you people who adore death as much as you adore life."

The threat of violence against Catholics and Christians was emphasised by the murder of an Italian nun in Somalia. Sister Leonella, 66, was shot as she walked from the children's hospital where she worked to her house in Mogadishu, a city recently taken over by an Islamic government.

A Vatican spokesman said he feared her death was "the fruit of violence and irrationality arising from the current situation".

[pizza]

A reasonable analysis of an unreasonable response


September 18, 2006, 6:16 a.m.

Unreasonable Response
Benedict XVI hasn’t revived the Crusades.

By Thomas F. Madden

In November 1095 Pope Urban II called the First Crusade. To judge from the comments issuing from some Muslim groups and politicians, Pope Benedict XVI has done the same thing. According to Salih Kapusuz, a deputy leader of the majority party in Turkey, Benedict, “has a dark mentality that comes from the darkness of the Middle Ages. He is a poor thing that has not benefited from the spirit of reform in the Christian world.” Kapusuz maintains that the pope is engaged in “an effort to revive the mentality of the Crusades.” And so it is that protesters across the Middle East are hastily sewing together pope effigies. In Ankara a black wreath was laid before the Vatican embassy and in Cairo people are chanting “Oh Crusaders, oh cowards! Down with the pope!”

So, what about that Crusade? Well, as one might expect, there isn’t one. Is it nonetheless true, as Muhammad Umar, chairman of the Ramadhan Foundation in Britain has claimed, that Benedict “has fallen into the trap of the bigots and racists when it comes to judging Islam…”? Not exactly. But he has fallen into the trap of association, even from the distance of six centuries, with someone who once criticized Islam. And that is clearly not acceptable.

On Tuesday, September 12, 2006, Pope Benedict XVI addressed scholars and scientists at the University of Regensburg on the topic of “Faith, Reason, and the University.” It was a very learned and scholarly lecture, which means that it would put most people comfortably to sleep. However, it is in this lecture that, some believe, Benedict revealed his true colors when it comes to Islam. Early in the address he referred to an interfaith dialogue between a Persian scholar and the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus which probably took place in 1391. Manuel was the leader of the last Christian state in the East. The descendent of the once mighty Roman Empire, Byzantium had by Manuel’s day been reduced to little more than a few crumbs floating around in the soup of the ever-expanding Ottoman Empire. This was a world in which the forces of Islam were the real superpower, and they knew it. Manuel spent his reign flattering and appeasing the Turks on the one hand and desperately seeking aid from Europeans on the other. In neither case was he very successful. Less than three decades after his death, the Ottoman sultan Mehmed II destroyed the Byzantine Empire and made its capital, Constantinople (modern Istanbul), his own.

But back to Benedict XVI. The pope resurrected Manuel II in order to make a point. He noted that the learned Manuel was well aware that the Koran states that “There is no compulsion in religion.” But he also knew, as someone who had been on the business end of jihad himself, that the Koran also speaks of holy war. With “startling brusqueness,” the pope continued, Manuel tackled this seeming contradiction by saying “’Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.’ The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable.”

The pope’s purpose in citing this passage is made clear almost immediately. “The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor [of Manuel’s dialogue], Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.” Now here is where it gets a little complicated. (I said that it was a scholarly lecture.) Benedict asks the question, “Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true?” He concludes that the Greek concept of reason, bound together with Christianity, fundamentally shaped, even gave birth to Europe. He then describes a process which he calls “dehellenization” in which Europeans from the Late Middle Ages onward have chipped away the fusion of faith and reason, placing them in completely separate spheres. This separation is the main focus of the lecture. It is, in fact, not about Islam at all. Benedict is calling a crusade, but it is one against a Christianity stripped of reason and a science stripped of transcendent truths. “In this sense theology rightly belongs in the university and within the wide-ranging dialogue of sciences, not merely as a historical discipline and one of the human sciences, but precisely as theology, as inquiry into the rationality of faith. Only thus do we become capable of that genuine dialogue of cultures and religions so urgently needed today.”

This is a tough lecture to boil down to one sentence, but if forced I would characterize it as: Theology belongs in the university because only by studying faith with reason will we find solutions to the problems of our time. However, if instead of reading the lecture we simply cut out everything except the words of Manuel II Palaeologus written six centuries ago, then we have a good justification for Pakistan’s parliament to unanimously condemn the pope. If we further pretend that it was Benedict, rather than a long-dead emperor, who expressed these sentiments we have a sound basis for the Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah of Lebanon to demand “a personal apology — not through his officials — to Muslims for this false reading (of Islam).” Or we can rage with Syria’s top Sunni Muslim religious authority, Sheik Ahmad Badereddine Hassoun, who replied to the pope, “We have heard about your extremism and hate for Arabs and Muslims. Now that you have dropped the mask from your face we see its ugliness and extremist nature.”

During Friday prayers in Iraq’s Shiite Muslim stronghold of Kufa, Sheik Salah al-Ubaidi reminded the faithful that “last year and in the same month the Danish cartoon assaulted Islam.” The pope’s comments were now a second assault, he said. Al-Ubaidi is at least partly right. The furor over the Danish cartoon brought in stark relief the cultural differences that exist when it comes to matters of free speech and expression. At least with the cartoon, the illustrator and publisher really were criticizing Islam and its founder. In the case of the pope, however, we have someone who is merely citing a medieval source within the context of a scholarly address. Is that really sufficient justification for Mr. Kapusuz to characterize the pope as “the author of such unfortunate and insolent remarks… [who] is going down in history in the same category as leaders such as Hitler and Mussolini”?

In the coming days there will undoubtedly be more protests, more outrage, and perhaps even more violence (a nun in Somalia was murdered this weekend) in response to the 14th-century words of Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus. Pope Benedict XVI has already apologized to the world’s Muslims, assuring them that he had no desire to offend them. Heads should soon cool. But the underlying problem will still remain. Interfaith dialogues, by their very nature, require some criticism and some understanding of the shared histories of the respective faiths. If these are stifled, if reason is exiled, then we will never understand, let alone bridge, the religious and cultural gulfs in the world today. And that is what the pope’s lecture was all about.


— Thomas F. Madden is professor of medieval history and chair of the Department of History at Saint Louis University. He is the author most recently of The New Concise History of the Crusades.


National Review Online - http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZD ... Q4NTllNGY=

[Corlyss_D]

The difference in religion has always been a big problem. most of the time, its the fuel and its climax.

But Star you know that if you took religion out of the mix, there would still exist the geopolitical and strategic rationales for what these actors do. The Iranians want to be a regional hegemon, if not a world player. They want to diminish the west and leave it a howling wilderness if possible.

Well, Radical or Facism Islam is indeed a problem.

Preying on the ignorance and dispair of their constituents in order to maximize their power. Another bunch that don't realize who their real oppressors are.

but i don't see problems with Muslims, in fact; i never saw a radical islam i n real life.

How do you explain this, living in Holland where they have killed an threatened people with opposing views?

most of the muslims are normal muslims, pretty liberated..

They have the most to fear from the success of these butchers who operate in their name, yet they are silence. In this context, how can one do other than conclude that silence is approval?

btw; i am not an atheist, i believe in a God, you could say im spiritual

Sorry. I thought I remembered you saying you were an atheist.